English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Designating individuals as terrorists: SC seeks Centre’s reply on UAPA amendment

Published

7 years ago

on

Designating individuals as terrorists: SC seeks Centre’s reply on UAPA amendment

The Supreme Court today – Friday, Sep 6 – issued notice to Centre, seeking its reply on the amendments to anti-terror law Unlawful Activities Prevention Act that empower the government to designate any individual as terrorist.

The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Ashok Bhushan issued the notice on petitions filed by Sajal Awasthi and NGO Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) which said the amended law allowed the government to freely encroach upon the fundamental rights of dignity, free speech, dissent and reputation.

The petitions said the UAPA Amendment Act of 2019, passed by the Parliament, conferred the Centre with “discretionary, unfettered and unbound powers” to categorise a person as a terrorist – powers which could be misused even to curb dissent.

The UAPA Amendment Bill was passed in the Lok Sabha on July 24 and in the Rajya Sabha on August 2 amid criticism by the opposition parties and civil liberties lawyers. The Bill empowers the government to declare individuals as terrorists as well as to seize their properties and impose a travel ban on them. The Bill received President Ram Nath Kovind’s assent on August 9.

Before this amendment, in line with the legal presumption of an individual is innocent until proven guilty, an individual who was convicted in a terror case was legally referred to as a terrorist, while those suspected of being involved in terrorist activities are referred to as terror accused. The amended law does not clarify the standard of proof required to establish that an individual is involved or is likely to be involved in terrorist activities.

It also does not require the filing of cases or arresting individuals while designating them as terrorists.

Also Read: Chandrayaan 2 set for Historic Landing: PM with 60 students to watch Live

Home Minister Amit Shah while discussing the Bill in the Rajya Sabha had said, “A four-level scrutiny has been provided in the amendment and no human rights will be violated.” He also said that declaring individuals as terrorists is required as they float different organisations once an institution is banned. He ignored the questions about why this should be done arbitrarily.

The law could now be used by the government to bring disrepute on a person, and even worse, rob him or her liberty. The heavy burden to prove the entire government machinery wrong would lie on the person.

The petitions challenge the validity of Sections 35 and 36 of the UAPA, as amended by the UAPA Amendment Act, 2019. “The new Section 35 of the UAPA Act, 1967 empowers the Central government to categorise any individual as ‘terrorist’ and add name of such a person in Schedule 4 of the Act,” said Awasthi.

The petitioner NGO contends that such labelling will lead to a lifelong stigma. It would also be against the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

“The amendment infringes upon the right to reputation and dignity which is a fundamental right under Article 21, without substantive and procedural due process. Notifying an individual as a terrorist without giving him an opportunity of being heard violates the individual’s right to reputation and dignity which is a facet of Right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution,” the petition states.

Awasthi’s petition says that the UAPA amendment is contrary to the Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India. It states: “It is well-settled and established position of law that dignity and liberty of an individual is inalienable under the regime of our controlled constitution and that the State is under an obligation to preserve the same. Though there have been certain instances wherein the State has adopted a contrary approach to the above-stated fact and it is pertinent to note here that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019 is an example of such an encroachment upon the Fundamental Rights.”

Also Read: Chidambaram in Tihar Jail as ED did not take his custody after asking for it all along

The petitions object to labelling an individual as a terrorist without granting him a hearing and following due process. Further, the plea goes on to submit that conferring of such “discretionary, unfettered and unbound” powers upon the Government, so as to notify an individual as a terrorist, is also against the right to equality as enshrined in the Constitution under Article 14.

If an individual is labelled a terrorist even before the commencement of the trial or application of judicial mind, it would be violative of the requirement of following a procedure established by law, Awasthi’s plea adds. It would also be violative of an individual’s right to reputation. Further, this lack of opportunity of hearing, according to the petitioner, will have a direct and adverse effect on the Right to Freedom of Speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

Threatens right to dissent

It is also the petitioner’s case that the amendment seeks to curtail this right to dissent under the garb of curtailing terrorism. “The right of dissent is a part and parcel of fundamental right to free speech and expression and therefore, cannot be abridged in any circumstances except for mentioned in Article 19 (2). The UAPA, 2019 empowers the ruling government, under the garb of curbing terrorism, to impose indirect restriction on right of dissent which is detrimental for our developing democratic society,” it said.

“The UAPA, 2019 empowers the ruling government, under the garb of curbing terrorism, to impose indirect restriction on right of dissent which is detrimental for our developing democratic society. India is a democracy and every citizen of India has a fundamental right to dissent but presence of draconian law and provisions as contained in Section 35 and 36 of the UAPA, 2019 directly encroach upon the same.”

 Right to reputation

The petition said the right to reputation was an intrinsic part of fundamental right to life with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution and tagging an individual as “terrorist” even before the commencement of trial or any application of judicial mind over it, did not amount to following the ‘procedure established by law’.

Instead of preserving the dignity of an individual, the government sought to encroach upon it, the petition said.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

India News

BJP releases first list of 47 candidates for Kerala assembly polls

The BJP has released its first list of 47 candidates for the Kerala Assembly elections scheduled for April 9, including three former Union ministers.

Published

10 hours ago

on

March 16, 2026

By

BJP releases list of candidates

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Monday released its first list of 47 candidates for the upcoming Kerala Assembly elections scheduled for April 9.

Voting will take place for all 140 seats in the state assembly, with counting of votes scheduled for May 4. A party or coalition needs at least 70 seats to secure a majority in the House.

Among the candidates announced in the first list are three former Union ministers — Rajeev Chandrasekhar, V. Muraleedharan and George Kurian.

Key candidates announced

Kerala BJP chief and former Union minister Rajeev Chandrasekhar has been fielded from the Nemom assembly constituency. In the 2024 Lok Sabha election, Chandrasekhar lost the Thiruvananthapuram seat to three-time MP Shashi Tharoor, but he led in the Nemom assembly segment during that contest. The party believes this performance strengthens its prospects in the constituency.

Nemom has held political significance for the BJP since 2016, when senior leader O. Rajagopal won the seat and became the party’s first-ever MLA in the 140-member Kerala Legislative Assembly. The victory marked the BJP’s initial breakthrough in the state assembly.

However, the seat returned to the Left camp in the 2021 Assembly election when V. Sivankutty defeated BJP leader Kummanam Rajasekharan.

Former Union minister V. Muraleedharan will contest from the Kazhakoottam constituency, while George Kurian has been nominated from Kanjirappally.

Other candidates in the list

According to the list released by the party, several other candidates have also been announced for key constituencies. P. C. George will contest from Poonjar, R. Sreelekha from Vattiyoorkavu and Padmaja Venugopal from Thrissur.

The BJP has also nominated Sobha Surendran from Palakkad, Navya Haridas from Kozhikode North and Kavitha K. S. from Sulthanbathery, a reserved constituency.

Raji Prasad will contest from the Kunnathur seat reserved for Scheduled Castes, while R. Rashmi has been fielded from Kottarakkara.

Political backdrop in Kerala

Kerala’s electoral politics has traditionally alternated between the Left Democratic Front (LDF) and the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF). However, the BJP has been attempting to expand its presence in the state.

The alternating trend was interrupted in the 2021 Assembly election when the electorate returned the Pinarayi Vijayan-led government to power for a second consecutive term.

The BJP believes recent electoral performances and local body successes have strengthened its position as it prepares to contest the upcoming assembly polls.

Continue Reading

India News

Fire in ICU at SCB medical college hospital in Cuttack kills 10 patients

Ten patients died after a fire broke out in the trauma ICU at SCB medical college hospital in Cuttack early Monday morning. Odisha Chief Minister Mohan Charan Majhi announced compensation and ordered a judicial probe.

Published

20 hours ago

on

March 16, 2026

By

A major fire at the trauma care intensive care unit (ICU) of SCB Medical College and Hospital in Cuttack, Odisha, early Monday morning left ten patients dead and several hospital staff members injured.

According to officials, the fire broke out between 2:30 am and 3:00 am in the trauma ICU where critically ill patients were undergoing treatment. Emergency teams rushed to the scene soon after the incident, and multiple fire engines were deployed to control the blaze and assist in rescue operations.

Odisha Chief Minister Mohan Charan Majhi said hospital staff were injured while evacuating patients from the affected ward during the emergency.

Patients shifted as rescue operations continued

Following the fire, 23 patients were moved to other departments and wards within the hospital to ensure their safety and continued medical care.

Speaking to reporters, the Chief Minister said seven critically ill patients died while being shifted to other ICUs and wards, while three more succumbed later.

“A total of 23 patients have been shifted to other departments. Seven serious patients died while shifting to other ICUs and wards, while another three patients died later. I have directed the concerned officers for proper treatment of the injured patients,” Majhi said.

Chief minister visits hospital, announces compensation

Soon after the incident, Majhi visited the hospital along with Odisha Health Minister Mukesh Mahaling to review the situation. They also met patients who were undergoing treatment at the facility.

The Chief Minister announced financial assistance of ₹25 lakh for the families of each deceased patient.

He also ordered a judicial probe into the incident to determine the cause of the fire and examine safety measures at the hospital.

Authorities continue to monitor the condition of injured staff members and patients who were shifted from the ICU.

Continue Reading

India News

Arvind Kejriwal moves Supreme Court against Delhi High Court order in excise policy case

Arvind Kejriwal has approached the Supreme Court challenging a Delhi High Court order related to proceedings in the excise policy case and alleging violation of his fundamental rights.

Published

20 hours ago

on

March 16, 2026

By

Arvind Kejriwal

Aam Aadmi Party chief and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has approached the Supreme Court of India challenging certain proceedings in the Delhi excise policy case and alleging a violation of his fundamental rights.

In a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, Kejriwal has questioned a decision of the Delhi High Court that put a freeze on remarks related to the investigation conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

The petition also challenges an order of the High Court Chief Justice rejecting Kejriwal’s request to transfer the case to another bench.

Plea seeks change of bench

Earlier, on March 11, Kejriwal and several others submitted a representation to Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya seeking reassignment of the case to what they described as an “impartial” judge.

In the representation, Kejriwal stated that he had a “grave, bona fide and reasonable apprehension” that the matter may not receive an impartial hearing before the current bench.

However, the Chief Justice declined the request and said the petition had been assigned as per the existing roster.

According to the communication sent by the High Court’s Registrar General on March 13 to eight individuals including Kejriwal, the Chief Justice noted that any decision on recusal must be taken by the judge hearing the matter and that there was no reason to transfer the petition administratively.

Order on trial court proceedings also challenged

Kejriwal has also challenged a March 9 order passed by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court.

In that order, Justice Sharma had stayed a trial court direction that called for an investigation into a CBI officer who handled the excise policy case. The High Court had also asked the trial court to defer proceedings connected to the anti-money laundering aspect of the case.

Justice Sharma had further rejected certain observations made by the trial court while discharging Kejriwal and 22 others, stating that some of those remarks were erroneous.

Hearing expected on CBI plea

Meanwhile, Justice Sharma is scheduled to hear a petition filed by the CBI challenging the discharge of Kejriwal, former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and others in the excise policy case.

The matter remains under judicial consideration as the legal challenge now moves to the Supreme Court.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com